Lord Ratner

"They are obviously going to follow what the supreme Court said." Keep trying, bub. You'll get it right eventually.

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation. Or you're just a bitter liar.

It'll work this time...

Turning Biff's guard application letter into a song is a bit unsettling.

Define "realistic way." It's a fairly ironic thing for you to say considering that in two posts you make this suggestion: Exactly which system do you exist under? Are you suggesting that the legislature create a new form of the judiciary that is not subject to appeal or review? Would this fast track system exist without a path to the supreme Court? Exactly what is a "fast track court" and how much funding do they require? Do the Republicans get to pick the judges for these courts? Would the illegal immigrants still have the right to taxpayer-funded legal counsel? Are we going to fund "fast track attorneys" to handle this process? There certainly aren't enough public defenders to handle 20 million immigration cases "quick(er)", so would these fast-track attorneys be required only two weeks of law school instead of the full 3 to 4 years? Personally, I love the idea of an immigration court with no right to appeal and Trump-selected judges that will run through ~ 5,000 cases per day. Unfortunately, even then it would take 11 years with no holidays or weekends to process the 20 million illegal immigrants floating around our country. Now, who's not addressing things in a realistic way again? There is, flat out, no realistic way to provide millions and millions of illegal immigrants the due process that we would consider constitutional for an American citizen. That is an inescapable reality. The progressives are making this argument because they know the only solution under this context is amnesty, because we will bankrupt ourselves before we are able to process that many people through our current legal system. As I said before, I am 100% in support of due process for any illegal immigrant that we are attempting to put into prison. But sending you back to the country you came from is not punishment. It is simply a response, and a rational one. And if you as an illegal alien parent decide to take your American citizen child (anchor baby) with you, that is not equivalent to deporting an American citizen. That is a mother choosing to stay with her child. There is a very real debate around the criminal illegal aliens that we sent to a Salvadorian prison. Unless they were Salvadorian in the first place, in which case, I don't care what El Salvador does with them once we sent them back. That tactic needs Supreme Court review. You just don't like the answers you're getting. That doesn't equal dodging the question.

Also no one here is defending any of the shit that he's crying about. Which gets to the real point, he's just upset that we don't care as much about those things as he does. Combining the arguments of 30 different people, and then layering on conservative news media as though that somehow represents the views of anyone here, then combining all of that into one hyper-conservative Boogeyman, and naming it "you guys." And then getting upset that no one is willing to take up the mantle of the fictional debate opponent he's created. Like, what am I supposed to say about Pam Bondi's obviously stupid tweet? Politicians have been overstating their accomplishments for as long as I've been alive plus a few thousand years. Yawn.

I'm fine (and in favor of) more punishment based on the outcome of the infraction. But at a minimum I want a permanent loss of license based on the decision. If a guy gets 2 DUI's for driving his tractor down an empty country road and never hits anyone or anything, he doesn't deserve jail for life. But he shouldn't drive anymore, ever again. Can the Mods spin this out into a thread called "DUI law" to keep this thread focused on the hero we lost?

Second offense, permanent loss of license. You get to be dumb once. After that it's intentional.

Buddy, trust me when I tell say you can never be sure what you'll be on trial for. I understand and feel the rage, but this is literally core to being American. Anyways, enough said. We lost one of our best, and we are all worse of for it. The donation link for the family is still active.

Danger41, like the rest of us, put on a uniform to defend ideals. One of which is the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Let's not forget that. I hope the drunk piece of shit rots in prison, and he should be man enough to plead guilty for his crimes, but his attorney is doing the job I hope he would do for you or me if we were on trial.

Fuckin' A.

True, under a libertarian system we would refuse medical and educational services to the illegal immigrants, which would alleviate a good portion of the problem. I doubt that would appease the left 🤷🏻‍♂️

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it… The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Precedent changes. We've had several very good examples of that recently. I can only speak for myself, but I am not advocating the Trump administration violate supreme Court ruling. I am advocating that they get the bad rulings fixed... And they will be fixed. The law always has a funny way of conforming to reality.

Buddy have you ever met a legal immigrant? My mother immigrated here in '61 and she still remembers her identification number. You think you just get a high five at the border and you're an American? There's documentation, paperwork, IDs. "Prove you are here legally. You can use any of the many forms you were provided during your immigration, or just give us your information and we can look you up" "Uhhh...." It is remarkable how dumb everybody is willing to play rather than just admit this is a no-brainer.

I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that illegals are subject to due process *for deportation.* Wanna put them in prison? Yep, they get the chance to appear in court. But deportation is simply the cessation of illegal occupation. Like I said before, no American gets due process before the cops can stop you from actively committing a crime. I believe in following the supreme court, but I'm not sure I agree with the ruling. This issue (and several others) needs a full hearing by SCOTUS.

"AFSOC is committed to the welfare of our Airmen and maintaining good order and discipline which is necessary to preserve the trust placed in us to execute our critical global missions." This is the UCMJ Article that covers fraternization. Similar verbiage is in the service-specific regulations §934. Art. 134. General article Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. As used in the preceding sentence, the term "crimes and offenses not capital" includes any conduct engaged in outside the United States, as defined in section 5 of title 18, that would constitute a crime or offense not capital if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of title 18.

Yeah I've never seen a commander slip in the reason for the dismissal like that.

See this is how I can tell you're an idiot. You're incapable of divorcing one argument from another. You don't like anyone supporting something you don't support, therefore they must disagree with you on every topic. You're not going to find a lot of people here who are fond of congressman using their positions to enrich themselves. But by all means, continue to show what a bad faith debater you are by continually making this more personal than it needs to be.

No gymnastics. It's not worth the time for someone who can't read plain English:

"I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base," Meyers wrote in the email, which was communicated to Military.com Yeah that's not a surprising dismissal.

Did you ever teach in the t-6? I never flew in the t-37, so I don't have a good comparison with a side-by-side trainer, but I never found the t-6 difficult to teach in. There were so few buttons and knobs to manipulate in-flight compared with more advanced aircraft, that you really didn't need to see the student moving their hands and touching the buttons to know what they were doing. As an advantage, the ability to disappear as an instructor by simply not talking was quite valuable for letting the student get lost in training while still being observed. Every flight was a simulated solo if the instructor chose to remain hands-off.

You do understand there are other ways to influence and bias trade than just tariffs, right? I already gave one example, the subsidized airlines in the Middle East. No tariffs, but it's still disadvantaging our airlines. In other countries VAT is universally collected, so it seems fair, yet the taxes are used to subsidize specific industries. Yet another way is the artificial devaluing of a currency. If you don't think this matters, watch what the Fed does when they think a nation is not playing by the rules. As for trade deficits, they are not inherently bad, but remember that they are only possible because there is a global reserve currency, the dollar. But the reserve currency is made unfathomably complicated by the Eurodollar system, which is way, way beyond the scope of this conversation. It's just not as simple as "trade good, tariff bad." Sorry. I don't think formula they used to come up with the tariff numbers makes sense, but it's pretty obvious they weren't meant to. The order from Trump was probably "just come up with something and hit them with huge tariffs. They'll come to the table." And so far he was right. Oh boy. You think that's compound interest? Strange that happened during the lowest rate period in the last 50 years. This was asset inflation, pure and simple, made possible by expanding the money supply rapidly and funneling the money through the banks. You aren't thinking about this clearly. If the *percentage* of wealth held by the top 0.1% is expected to continually increase, exactly what happens as you follow the graph out over time? They just eventually reach 99.9%? What do you think happens to the social order? The nominal amounts can change but the percentage of wealth controlled by a given percentile should be relatively constant. Completely depends on how tariffs are used. Either Bessent or Lutnick mentioned a separate tariff strategy akin to pre-WWI America where tariffs rather than income taxes were the primary revenue source. Removing all income taxes below $150k income and using tariffs instead. This is a step closer to a sales-tax-based system instead of income, and I'm a huge supporter of that. But that all depends on Trump having a stable policy. Doubtful, but we won't know until the "reciprocal" tariff war phase of the plan is over. We'll see.

Lot of money to be made there, just remember, it is absolutely not a store of value/safety trade. It's been moving basically in sync with the magnificent seven. Completely speculative right now.

The guy I follow was short through the collapse, then went long during the sucker rally. I wasn't thrilled by the end of Tuesday, but I trust him and it paid off on Today.

Someone doesn't want to be on the naughty list